FRANKLIN COUNTY - In the weeks after the Supreme Court ruled people should no longer be penalized for refusing a blood test during a DUI investigation, prosecutors and police across the country scrambled to determine what it would mean for their jurisdictions.

In Franklin County, officials found the decision isn't as dire as it first seemed.

The ruling, stemming from two cases out of North Dakota and one in Minnesota, states people accused of DUI who refuse a blood test cannot be penalized for their refusal and that search warrants are required for the test to occur.

For most offenders in Pennsylvania, it will mean the possibility of a slightly lesser sentence upon conviction.

A person accused of DUI in Pennsylvania who refused a blood test could be charged with DUI-refusal, which carried the same maximum punishment as the charge for DUI with the highest level of blood alcohol content. According to the ruling, the court found that to be a tactic to threaten people into taking a blood test unnecessarily.

Instead, the Supreme Court decision states a warrant will now be required for a blood test, due to the test's intrusive nature.

"At first blush, it just looked like (the ruling) was going to be catastrophic, but then digging through and thinking through, it's not going to be as bad as we first thought it might be," Franklin County District Attorney Matt Fogal said.

Once the decision was released on June 23, Pennsylvania law enforcement first concentrated on the "threatening" language regarding a DUI-refusal charge carrying the same weight as the highest-BAC DUI charge. By June 30, district attorney's offices had sent police departments new implied-consent forms that reflect the need to get a warrant for blood tests in cases in which a subject was refusing.

Some departments will begin using breathalyzer tests more often, instead of blood tests, when drug use is not expected.

"We have something called a drug recognition expert, so they can be called out to the scene to utilize their training to see if this was a drug-impaired driver," Fogal said. "They still need to get a warrant at that point."

One of the main concerns for the law change was the idea that a judge would have to be called every time there is a refusal, potentially setting up some logistical issues. That's something Fogal said hasn't been an issue, so far.

Fogal estimated that while DUIs make up about a third of his office's caseload, only about 10 percent of those DUIs are refusals.

A person charged with DUI can get three charges: DUI general impairment, a charge for DUI based on BAC level, and a charge regarding the number of DUI offenses the person has committed. A majority of people receive the three types of charges.

The lack of a refusal requirement only means a person may have a slightly lesser sentence upon conviction, not that they wouldn't be charged at all.

As for the cases currently going through the court system that are affected by the decision, Fogal said they will look at those and renegotiate any potential pleas based on the new guidelines.

Although those who refuse a blood test will no longer be tied to the punishment for highest-level DUIs, the requirement of driver's license suspension is not changing.

"I don't expect to see an uptick in refusals," Fogal said. "If there's an uptick, and we're getting more warrants, and the magistrates are having more logistical difficulty, then we can - there's some remedies in mind. Things we can certainly do if we need to."